OSLO — President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman's rights activist.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"
President Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson won in 1919.
Story continues below

The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.
Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.
The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.
"The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given too someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.
Nominators include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
The Nelson Mandela Foundation welcomed the award on behalf of its founder Nelson Mandela, who shared the 1993 Peace Prize with then-South African President F.W. DeKlerk for their efforts at ending years of apartheid and laying the groundwork for a democratic country.
"We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting peace and the eradication of poverty," the foundation said.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, he said the peace prize should be given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel's death.
The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.

I can't help but think that there are much more worthy candidates than Obama. Certainly he is trying to do the right thing in many instances and I agree with his approach to international diplomacy (though I agree with what Yoly said in the thread linking this on the main board - he needs to grow a pair and take a stronger position on some issues.). But he hasn't actually achieved anything yet. I think this is just the Nobel committee's way of flipping the bird to George W. And I don't think the Nobel Peace Prize should be used in such a manner.

To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.

I can't help but think that there are much more worthy candidates than Obama. Certainly he is trying to do the right thing in many instances and I agree with his approach to international diplomacy (though I agree with what Yoly said in the thread linking this on the main board - he needs to grow a pair and take a stronger position on some issues.). But he hasn't actually achieved anything yet. I think this is just the Nobel committee's way of flipping the bird to George W. And I don't think the Nobel Peace Prize should be used in such a manner.

Thanks for saying that, Geeky, I have to agree. I am a supporter of Obama and I think his presidency has been very good for U.S.-foreign relations. But the nomination deadline was February 1. Did he do Nobel Peace Prize-worthy actions within the first two weeks of his presidential term?

This is going to give fuel to the wackos who say Obama is treated like the Messiah.

Thanks for saying that, Geeky, I have to agree. I am a supporter of Obama and I think his presidency has been very good for U.S.-foreign relations. But the nomination deadline was February 1. Did he do Nobel Peace Prize-worthy actions within the first two weeks of his presidential term?

This is going to give fuel to the wackos who say Obama is treated like the Messiah.

Originally Posted by sarah42

Yep. In fact, I already have friends on facebook spouting statuses like "I know you like Obama, but let's not make this a religion" and such.

I can't help but think that there are much more worthy candidates than Obama. Certainly he is trying to do the right thing in many instances and I agree with his approach to international diplomacy (though I agree with what Yoly said in the thread linking this on the main board - he needs to grow a pair and take a stronger position on some issues.). But he hasn't actually achieved anything yet. I think this is just the Nobel committee's way of flipping the bird to George W. And I don't think the Nobel Peace Prize should be used in such a manner.

Originally Posted by geeky

Originally Posted by mj11051

Which part do you find confusing?

To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.

For those that ask the question as to what Pres. Obama could have done that was Nobel prize worthy in 2 weeks. Correct me if I am wrong but although the deadline for nomination was Feb 01, I don't think a decision was made then as to who would win on that date. I think that all the candidates was looked at on a continuing basis going forward until decision time which for all we know could have been in the past 2 weeks.
The following piece taken from the article of the NY Times in which Mr. Jagland of the prize committee explains their decision and that's what matters...it's their decision... not the people of the US.

Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics,” the committee wrote. “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.” Interviewed later in the Nobel Committee’s wood-paneled meeting room, surrounded by photographs of past winners, Mr. Jagland brushed aside concerns expressed by some critics that Mr. Obama remains untested.
“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” Mr. Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”
He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with communist eastern Europe.
“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” said Mr. Jagland. “The same thing is true of the prize to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, for launching perestroika. One can say that Barack Obama is trying to change the world, just as those two personalities changed Europe.”
“We have to get the world on the right track again,” he said. Without referring specifically to the Bush era, he continued: “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”

Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 -- only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September -- two months before Obama was elected president.

Just wanted to clear that part up.

I think it's premature at best.

Anyone who lives within their means, suffers from a lack of imagination. ~Oscar Wilde

So getting people to like you is the criteria? Lots of people like me! Where's my prize?

A year or two from now, if any of Obamas plans actually started to actually make this country better, then i'd consider him worthy of a prize. As of now? No way in heck!!

Originally Posted by NYCurlyGirly

Making an effort in changing how the world views, thereby reacts to our country is pretty darn important.

I have no problem with people saying it's early, but to say he's done absolutly nothing, well..

According to Wiki the Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

So getting people to like you is the criteria? Lots of people like me! Where's my prize?

A year or two from now, if any of Obamas plans actually started to actually make this country better, then i'd consider him worthy of a prize. As of now? No way in heck!!

Originally Posted by NYCurlyGirly

Making an effort in changing how the world views, thereby reacts to our country is pretty darn important.

I have no problem with people saying it's early, but to say he's done absolutly nothing, well..

According to Wiki the Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

Originally Posted by Trenell

Consider the source, Trenell.

I think it's a little early to be awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize but to say he's done nothing but make people like him is ridiculous. And given the number of people who hate his guts for whatever reason *coughcoughskincolorcough* I don't know how successful he's been on that front lately.

It is extremely disrespectful, presumptuous, and dismissive to call this award "premature" or undeserving.

Those using the above terms are not Nobel prize committee members, and are entirely unaware of the process involved in choosing the winner.

If you would take the time to actually read and comprehend the press release for the Nobel Peace Prize, there is great emphasis on key elements of Obama's approach and efforts that have contributed not just to one nation but the entire world.

It is extremely disrespectful, presumptuous, and dismissive to call this award "premature" or undeserving.

Those using the above terms are not Nobel prize committee members, and are entirely unaware of the process involved in choosing the winner.

Originally Posted by Usoda

Should I assume based on that statement that YOU are on the Nobel Peace Prize committee?

Please enlighten us on the process of which you are so familiar with.

Making a blanket statement like the one you just did I find offensive, disrepectful, and dismissive of other peoples opinions.

There have been other contraversal Nobel winners. This isn't something new.

I find that Obama getting the award to be premature when compared to others that were nominated and shown to be deserving of it based on their previous good works. Obama IS untested ( as people on the committe even argued), and only time will tell how much he gets accomplished. I hardly find that presumptuous of me or anyone else.

Anyone who lives within their means, suffers from a lack of imagination. ~Oscar Wilde